Under compulsory licensing, a government grants someone a license under a patent, e.g.to produce a patented product or process, without the consent of the patent holder. The possibility of a compulsory license is included in the WTO’s TRIPS agreement.
The individual or company seeking to use another’s intellectual property may have to pay the patent holder a fee for the license. This is an exception to the general rule that the patent holder enjoys exclusive rights, which he is free (not) to license to others.
By ruling of 21 February 2014, the Court of Turin decided a case between the US corporation Rovi and a number of Italian consumers electronics manufacturers. These had produced / imported set-top-boxes equipped with Electronic Programme Guides (EPG) that allegedly made use of the Rovi EPG patents, although without being covered by the Rovi licensing scheme….
by Dr. Simon Klopschinski In one of its latest orders the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court has used the opportunity to take a glimpse into the crystal ball, in order to see what decision the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is going to render in response to the pending referral for preliminary ruling…
With its decision of July 25, 2013 (6 U 541/12), the Higher Regional Court Munich confirmed the first-instance decision finding that licenses under the patents of an insolvent company remain valid and enforceable. This case relates to the spinning-off of the stand-alone memory business unit from Infineon AG to the newly established Quimonda AG, and…
In an earlier decision (BGH M2Trade), the Court held that the termination of the main license agreement does not automatically lead to a termination of the sublicense. It remains in force when the main license is terminated for reasons such as a mutual agreement of the main licensor and the main licensee who is also…
Although the right of the main licensee to use the invention automatically fell back to the licensor upon the licensee’s insolvency, the Court held that the sublicensee enjoys protection of succession and that the sublicense continued to exist despite the termination of the main license. Click here for the full text of this case. A summary…
In a recent decision (case no. 4A_443/2012) the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had to deal with a dispute between the German Robert Bosch GmbH, which filed suit against the Swiss Federal Confederation based on the Swiss portion of EP 0 741 373. The decision exclusively focuses on the question whether the Swiss Federal Patent Court has jurisdiction…
by Hetti Hilge The District Court Duesseldorf stayed a case between Huawei and ZTE concerning mobile and base stations within the LTE standard and referred five question to the CJEU (docket No. 4b O 104/12). The court wants to clarify under what circumstances an infringement court has to consider a compulsory license defense in a…
The Regional Court Dusseldorf submitted on 21 March 2013 a referral to the CJEU with five questions regarding the interpretation of Art. 102 TFEU relating to the antitrust objection of compulsory license in patent infringement actions. The patent infringement action at issue is concerned with a LTE-standard-essential patent. The plaintiff declared its readiness via the…
By Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen Under paragraph 103 of the German Insolvency Act, an insolvency practitioner has the right to choose whether or not to honour existing contracts of the insolvent company. Does this right also apply for any patent licences granted by the insolvent company? The Regional Court Munich has ruled in a case in…
rospatt osten pross Motorola obtained a first instance judgement against Apple, because iPhone and iPad infringe the European patent No. 1 010 336 declared essential to the GPRS standard by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute). Apple’s defence of a compulsory licence under anti-trust law failed. The German Federal Court of Justice recognised in principle that…
